There he goes again. Sean Hannity hasn’t finished salivating overusingBenghazi-Gate as a cause for impeaching President Obama and now he’s lusting (pardon the pun) over using the Petraeus sex scandal as another excuse.

In case you haven’t been following Hannity the last several years, these two are just the latest examples of his impeachment fever. Benghazi followed, Fast and Furious-gate, campaign-ad-gate and Sestak-gate. And speaking of Sestak-gate, Hannity’s impeachment cohort in that big scandal (not), Jay Sekulow, was back on Hannity to talk impeachment again.

Apparently, the two couldn’t get their impeachment grounds coordinated. Hannity suggested the whole Petraeus investigation was trumped up to keep him from testifying about Benghazi. Complaining there was no need to have investigated the sex scandal, Hannity said about Petraeus, “Essentially, he has been silenced just days before he was scheduled to testify before Congressional investigators.” Of course, Petraeus has only been temporarily silenced. It’s pretty clear he will testify eventually. Not that Sekulow corrected Hannity

At about 8:37 in the video below, Hannity blatantly prodded Sekulow, an attorney, into talking impeachment – based on Hannity’s “belief” that Obama lied.

We’ve got to get to the fundamentals here. Who knew what when? What did they know and when did they know it? What if we find out the President of the United States lied? Because I believe, I do not believe that he did not know what was going on. I do not believe two weeks after, when everybody knew that this was not related to that YouTube video. I do not believe what he was saying to the American people. If he lied, what does that mean?

But to Sekulow, the “crime” was that our national security has been compromised. Sekulow said:

Well, if he lied, the consequences of course would be significant including possible impeachment. If he lied. But Sean, there’s another question here. It’s not just if he lied. The question is if the Attorney General of the United States knew this information, which he clearly we now know, regarding the situation with David Petraeus, he did know. We had our national security compromised just because of this activity going on and you had the President of the United States communicating with the CIA Director that’s under an FBI investigation… The fact of the matter is this investigation reached the Attorney General of the United States and he doesn’t tell the President? Doesn’t make sense.

The only problem? It was not the CIA Director under investigation. It was Paula Broadwell, his mistress, who was sending harassing emails to another woman she saw as a rival:

The FBI’s focus was on whether laws were broken, in this case whether federal cyber-harassment statutes were violated. The sources emphasized that Petraeus himself was never the focus of the investigation, nor did it turn up evidence he broke any law.

The focus was on his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he had the affair that led to his resignation as CIA director last week.

Furthermore, investigators did not find that national security had been compromised.

Investigators uncovered no compromising of classified information or criminal activity, sources familiar with the probe said, adding that all that was found was a lot of “human drama.”

Late Summer 2012— Attorney General Eric Holder is notified. By this time, the FBI has long since concluded there was no national security breach, but continues investigating whether Petraeus had any role in the harassing emails sent to Kelley.

But as I previously posted, FoxNews.com’s timeline, which it got from AP, left out the part about “no national security breach.” Its version of that entry merely reads:

Late summer 2012-- Attorney General Eric Holder is notified.

If Sekulow gets all his information from Fox, it’s no wonder he’s so misinformed. Unless, of course, he's just lying.

Showing 8 reactions

Nothing is too bizarre or immoral for republicans. No lie is too big, no conspiracy theory too outrageous and unbelievable. Conservatism has become a religious cult that is different and distinct from Christianity ( and reality) and is now beyond the reach of reason and logic.

Given his own background, Handout Hannocchio is the last person to accuse others of lying. We can document numerous cases of Hannocchio’s lies with proof.

If anyone should be investigated, it would be Hannocchio. The IRS loves people like him, and he knows what we are talking about.

Hannocchio has broken the law by photographing his ballot last week. The cowardly New York DA refuses to charge him. The DA must be removed from office because he obviously is showing favoritism towards Hannocchio.

I would be very interested to see Jay Sekulow actually have to go on the air with someone who could point out the convoy-sized holes in the arguments he makes. He’s entertaining in that he always tries to make a case for impeachment, but after a while this really comes across as a one-act play he keeps repeating over and over again.

Sean Hannity hasnât finished salivating over using Benghazi-Gate as a cause for impeaching President Obama and now heâs lusting (pardon the pun) over using the Petraeus sex scandal as another excuse.

What are you saying, Sean — that it was President Obama’s fault that Petraeus cheated?

Sounds like more of that “personal responsibility” rightwingnuts are famous for.

In any case, Sean, it sure sounds a lot like you’re willing to throw Petraeus under the bus just to get to Obama — a MARKEDCONTRAST to the outrage you had over the MoveOn.org ad back in 2007:

âI see a hero being slandered, an American war hero being slandered"